A landmark work of over 100 scholars, The Heritage Guide to the Constitution provides unique line-by-line analysis explaining every clause of America's founding charter and its contemporary meaning. Second edition completely revised.

• An unprecedented collaborative work of 114 leading scholars, with over 200 original essays
• Completely revised, nine years following the original landmark work
• Foreword by Edwin Meese III, 75th Attorney General of the United States

From the opening pages, Navarro makes it clear he didn’t enter federal prison as a criminal, but as a patriot defending the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution. His “crime”? Upholding executive privilege on behalf of President Donald J. Trump — the same principle dating back to George Washington. Yet under Joe Biden’s Justice Department, that once-sacred doctrine became grounds for shackles and a cell. Navarro’s prosecution, as he points out, was the first of its kind in American history — the first time a senior White House adviser has ever been imprisoned for contempt of Congress after asserting executive privilege. //

By the end, Navarro’s book becomes more than a memoir — it’s a warning. It shows how easily justice can be weaponized, how quickly America’s legal institutions can morph into tools of political retribution. His ordeal mirrors Trump’s: biased juries, radical Democrat judges, and media-driven show trials masquerading as due process. The parallel is unmistakable and chilling. When Navarro writes, “There’s not a dime’s worth of difference now between the courts in Communist China and the good ole U.S. of A.,” it’s hard to disagree. //

His message to America is simple: stand up, or lose your country. His story is a mirror held up to a nation on the brink — and a reminder that freedom requires more than words; it demands courage.

"I Went to Prison So You Won’t Have To" is a must-read for anyone who still believes that justice should be blind and that loyalty to the Constitution should never be a crime. It is a love letter to freedom, a eulogy for due process, and a siren warning about what happens when Democrats weaponize the courts to destroy political opponents. //

His book stands as both testimony and prophecy — a call to action ahead of the coming election. Because as Navarro’s ordeal proves, when the government can jail a man for serving his president, the republic itself hangs in the balance. //

Laocoön of Troy
3 hours ago
This reads like a replay of Émile Zola and "J'Accuse".

Good! America needs to look deeply into the face of bureaucratic injustice and vicious political perversion of it. Tyranny.

At the heart of the issue, at least in the case itself, is that Montana's permitless carry law basically says that everyone who isn't expressly forbidden from carrying a gun is considered licensed, and the federal law says people with licenses can carry in the buffer area around a school. The Biden administration argued that no, the licensing had to be explicit--something the law doesn't seem to actually state, for the record--and so he was in violation of federal law.

Metcalf's defense is that he literally had no reason to believe any such thing, which is fair.

However, a bigger issue is the existence of this area outside of the school grounds themselves.

See, the federal law doesn't account for permitless carry as most states have it, nor does it account for things like reciprocity. You have to be licensed in that state in order to just walk past a school on the sidewalk, which is a problem.

This is something most people are going to be unaware of when traveling, for one thing, just as they're not going to be aware of where all the schools in a given city might be. Just following Google Maps could land you a felony charge, simply because Google didn't know you needed to be so many feet away from a school because you're lawfully carrying a firearm.

It's ridiculous. //

California Curmudgeon
7 hours ago
Wasn’t he also within his own yard when he was arrested? Living within 1000 feet of a school should not override your rights.

Humphrey’s Executor has had major negative implications for America’s separation of powers and the ability of presidents to fully exercise their Article II authority.

The Preamble

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Dieter Schultz DaveMac
3 hours ago edited
Yeah, doesn't seem right, does it?

Months ago... before Trump took office, streiff had a great piece on the whole issue of birthright citizenship, it was well worth the read.

Honestly, I don't see how with what's he brought up and referenced in that article that anyone can rule that Trump's order is unconstitutional.

There were examples of the US government having to get positive affirmation via a law to grant citizenship to Indians, the author of the 14th clarifying its intentions, and the need to recognize the limits of the 'seminal' case with extending citizenship to legal permanent foreign residents, explicit denial of citizenship to babies of foreign diplomats... all feeding into the State Department making a unilateral decision to grant 'birthright citizenship' without any grant of legal authority.

The best I can tell is that these judges are ruling on the constitutionality of the issue based on the length of time that the State Department's unilateral decision has remained unchallenged and then finding it unconstitutional. //

Az-Mt
4 hours ago
“And subject to the jurisdiction” must mean someone approved by the govt to be here. Otherwise the words are simply meaningless and being ignored as inconvenient.

mopani Az-Mt
a few minutes ago
If you came here illegally you are excluding yourself from the jurisdiction of this nation. Therefore your children born here cannot be born citizens.

If you came here on a visa you are not subject to United States' jurisdiction either, your country of citizenship still has jurisdiction -- for conscription or draft, for example.

The trial court declined to appoint counsel for Gideon. As a result, he was forced to act as his own counsel and conduct his own defense in court, emphasizing his innocence in the case. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury returned a guilty verdict. The court sentenced Gideon to serve five years in the state prison.

Gideon first filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Supreme Court of Florida. In his petition, he claimed his Sixth Amendment right had been violated because the judge refused to appoint counsel. The Florida Supreme Court denied Gideon's petition.[3] Later, from his cell at the Florida State Prison in Raiford, making use of the prison library and writing in pencil on prison stationery,[4] Gideon appealed to the United States Supreme Court in a suit against the Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections, H. G. Cochran. Cochran retired and was replaced by Louie L. Wainwright before the Supreme Court heard the case. Gideon argued in his appeal that he had been denied counsel and therefore that his Sixth Amendment rights, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, had been violated.

The Supreme Court assigned Gideon a prominent Washington, D.C. attorney, future Supreme Court justice Abe Fortas of the law firm Arnold, Fortas & Porter. //

As a second point, Fortas presented during oral argument that it was widely accepted in the legal community that the first thing any reputable lawyer does when accused of a crime is hire an attorney. As an example, Fortas noted that when Clarence Darrow, who was widely known as the greatest criminal attorney in the United States, was charged with jury tampering and suborning perjury, the first thing he did was get an attorney to represent him.[7] Since Gideon had only an eighth-grade education, Fortas suggested that if a lawyer as prominent as Darrow needed an attorney to represent him in criminal proceedings, then a man without a legal education, or any education for that matter, needed a lawyer too.[7] Fortas's former Yale Law School professor, longtime friend and future Supreme Court colleague Justice William O. Douglas praised his argument as "probably the best single legal argument" in his 36 years on the court.[8]

Every member of the military has sworn an oath to the nation since the Continental Army’s creation in 1775. Wording to specify allegiance to the U.S. Constitution was added in 1789, and has remained in all versions of military oaths of enlistment and commissioning since. This tradition sets our military apart from many others around the world, where loyalty is often tied to a ruler or regime. The American oath binds service members to a set of ideals and structures greater than any one administration.

Unfortunately, this noble intent is being misinterpreted. Ill-informed pundits, academics, military officers, lawmakers, and even ordinary American citizens frequently describe the military as “apolitical.” But that isn’t quite right. The military exists to enforce the political will of the United States—by force if necessary. It’s not above politics; it’s an instrument of it. A correct reading of the military oath clarifies this: troops swear to uphold the enduring framework of the nation, not the transient preferences of elected officials.

So, what does loyalty to the Constitution actually mean? How is a service member to judge whether their actions align with that oath? Most don’t know. Those who do have learned through personal initiative—not institutional instruction. //

This problem can be solved. I propose three key reforms:

1. Mandatory Annual Constitutional Training

The White House recently mandated an 80-hour Constitution and rule-of-law course for executive branch employees, capped by a two-day in-person session. The military can follow suit by requiring holistic annual constitution training for every military member. Numerous free, reputable programs already exist to support this effort:

National Constitution Center’s Constitution 101 Course
American Bar Association’s Civics Education Series for Military Members
Hillsdale College’s Constitution 101: The Meaning and History of the Constitution. //

2. Required Pocket Constitutions

Every service member should be issued a laminated pocket Constitution, worn as part of the uniform. If troops are still required to wear dog tags in this day of DNA identification, there’s no reason that carrying the document to which they swear is a bridge too far.

3. Memorization of Founding Principles

In the Army, we are required to know the Soldier’s Creed and Army Song by heart, ready to recite from memory on command. Promotion boards evaluate enlisted soldiers on their ability to recite these and other military codes. Why not include selections from the Constitution—or Declaration of Independence? //

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) provides the fastest route for implementation. With Republican majorities in Congress, there is an opportunity to require annual, rigorous, non-partisan instruction in the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law for all military personnel. This training must reject “living document” ideology in favor of fidelity to textualism.

Military officers have become accustomed to obeying and implementing unlawful directives because they know that the oath is presently meaningless and that all power—in practice—is held by individuals in the chain of command, rather than the nation’s founding documents, U.S. law, and military regulations. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth must purge ideologues who corrupted the institution—but that alone won’t fix the culture.

Townhall.com @townhallcom
·
LOL — @SpeakerJohnson is OVER Jeffries' crap.

"Ronald Reagan said one time, 'No speech should be longer than 20 minutes.' Unlike the Democrat leader, I'm gonna honor my colleagues time and be a little more brief than that." 😂
0:20 / 0:20
1:55 PM · Jul 3, 2025. //

"My friends and colleagues, we are so blessed, we should not take it for granted. We live in the most free, the most successful, the most powerful, the most benevolent nation that has ever been on the face of the Earth. And there's a reason for that — the reason that we are the greatest nation is because we were built on the ultimate foundation. And the bold Declaration that my friend Hakeem Jeffries articulated earlier is true. We unite under that. The bold Declaration that we do hold these truths to be self-evident. What is a self-evident truth? It's something that's obvious. 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal' — it does not say 'born equal,' it says 'created equal.' And...it is our creator that gives us our rights.

"See? The powerful thing about that is we're the first nation in the history of the world that acknowledged that our rights do not derive from government — they come from God himself. You see those words up there — that motto — it says 'In God We Trust,' right above the Speaker's rostrum. You know, a previous Congress put that there in the early sixties....Congress voted to put that there as a rebuke to the Soviets' worldview at the height of the Cold War. Why? Because communism, socialism, find their root in Marxism, and Marxism begins with the belief that there is no God. It's wrong."

"This Congress made a stand those many years ago, and we should do it again — we're different, we're distinct, we're exceptional, because we acknowledge that right there, our motto. It doesn't say 'In Government We Trust,' it says 'In God We Trust.' And we better remember that. He has blessed us with this grand experiment in self-governance now for almost two-and-a-half centuries, and by God's grace, we are working hard, and we are delivering on our promise to Make America Great Again.

Writing for the majority, Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not mince words when criticizing the lack of legal rationale behind the Biden appointee’s emotionally-charged dissent. //

While noting how the principal dissent authored by Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor “focuses on conventional legal terrain, like the Judiciary Act of 1789 and our cases on equity,” Barrett highlighted how Jackson’s dissent “chooses a startling line of attack that is tethered neither to these sources nor, frankly, to any doctrine whatsoever.” More specifically, she underscored how her Democrat-appointed colleague’s expressed views on the power of courts go beyond those of judicial supremacists — those who believe the judiciary is superior to the other branches of government. //

“Waving away attention to the limits on judicial power as a ‘mind-numbingly technical query,’ post, at 3 (dissenting opinion), [Jackson] offers a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush. In her telling, the fundamental role of courts is to ‘order everyone (including the Executive) to follow the law—full stop.'” //

“We will not dwell on JUSTICE JACKSON’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.“ //

While agreeing that the executive has an obligation to follow the law, Barrett chastised Jackson for “skip[ping] over” the fact that the judiciary must do so as well, and that separation of powers must be upheld.

“JUSTICE JACKSON would do well to heed her own admonition: ‘[E]veryone, from the President on down, is bound by law.’ … That goes for judges too.”

‘When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.’. //

On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court declared rogue lower courts’ universal injunctions against President Donald Trump’s birthright citizenship order to be unlawful.

“[F]ederal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them. When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too,” Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote.

Anybody who knows a law book from an LL Bean catalog knows that federal judges just made up this concept of universal injunctions. There's no basis in statute, no basis in Supreme Court precedent. There's no basis in English common law.

They just made it up because they don't agree with what a president or Congress has done. You know, if they disagree, you know, I'm sorry—fill out a hurt feelings support. Buy a comfort rock.

But they can't just say, "I disagree and I'm putting the entire action by another branch of government on hold, because I don't like it," and that's what they've been doing…. //

They're not the superior branch of government. They're an equal branch of government. //

RocketGeezer NorCalGC
a day ago
That’s largely true for SCOTUS too, since Article 3 defines it’s jurisdiction, but doesn’t really define it role. SCOTUS has done a pretty good job of defining its role since the founding.

The lower federal courts, whose establishment, funding, role and jurisdiction were to be done by Congress, have been established and funded by Congress, but have essentially defined their own role and jurisdiction. Naturally, they’ve gone far afield from what the founders likely envisioned, especially in the last 30 or 40 years.

The lower federal judiciary now boils down to small, insecure people in minor roles trying to make themselves way more important than they were intended to be. I’d say that most of the lower federal judiciary has a bad case of SCOTUS envy! //

camd83 Marek76
5 hours ago
Excellent point! The President is the only person elected by the whole country - how can an unelected, single district judge, override action for the USA taken by the country-wide elected official? Wish SCOTUS was more definitive in their decision. Looks like the Left will just switch from injunctions to class-action lawsuits which will be approved by these same judges.

This Supreme Court term may well be remembered as a turning point. Not because the justices dismantled the administrative state in one dramatic move, but because they took important steps to rein in its excesses.

A string of rulings issued Friday—from McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson Corp. to Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA to FDA v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co.—shows the Court is serious about restoring balance between unelected regulators and the courts tasked with holding them accountable.

What ties these decisions together is not a single ideological agenda. It is a shared recognition that when agencies act like legislative bodies or try to wall themselves off from judicial review, they go beyond their constitutional limits. The Court’s recent work reminds us that regulatory power must remain subject to oversight and correction when needed. //

District judges must independently interpret statutes, even when an agency has already spoken. As Justice Kavanaugh put it, “When a statute is clear, it is the law—not the agency’s interpretation—that governs.”. //

In FDA v. R.J. Reynolds, the Court pushed back on the FDA’s attempt to control who could challenge its decisions. The agency argued that only manufacturers could challenge its denial of premarket approvals. The Court disagreed and ruled that retailers, who are also harmed by these decisions, have every right to challenge them.

This ruling matters because it keeps agencies from deciding who gets to take them to court. When regulators pick their critics, there is no real oversight. //

None of these decisions dismantles the administrative state. Nor should they. What they do is draw clearer boundaries. Regulators should not act as lawmakers. They should not decide who can challenge them. They should not expect courts to accept their interpretations of the law automatically.

These rulings stand out because they are not driven by ideology. In fact, in some of these cases, Justice Elena Kagan, one of the Court’s more progressive voices, joined the conservative majority. That tells us something important. It suggests that Kagan recognizes, as the majority does, that unchecked regulatory power is dangerous no matter who holds it. If a progressive agency can go too far, so can a conservative one. The Constitution’s checks and balances are there to protect everyone.

Together, these rulings mark a shift toward restoring that balance. In our system, laws should come from legislators, be applied by judges, and not be dictated by unelected bureaucrats. That is a balance worth defending. //

Warren Pease
8 hours ago
“None of these decisions dismantles the administrative state. Nor should they.”

I must disagree with this premise. The administrative state is prima facie unconstitutional. Laws must be passed by both houses of congress and signed by the president. Having unelected bureaucrats make “regulations” with the force of law (these people can jail you and ruin you) is antithetical to a representative republic. SCOTUS should stop screwing around and remove the authority of anyone but congress to do things with the force of law.

“Our democracy cannot very well function if individual judges issue extraordinary relief to every plaintiff who clamors to object to executive action,” U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil said in her ruling on Monday. “It is not the role of a district court judge to direct the policies of the Executive Branch first and ask questions later.”

Those are the words many observers of the ongoing judicial coup have wanted to hear from a federal judge since the first wave of injunctions from tyrannical district court judges started coming down early in the Trump administration’s tenure, blocking the president elected by the American people to do what they elected him to do.

They finally came from Vyskocil, a Trump appointee serving in New York, when she dismissed a case from teachers unions attempting to get the court to “commandeer,” as she put it, $400 million in federal grants and contracts to Columbia University. The Trump administration canceled the funding because of the school’s inability to handle pro-Palestine protests and violence on its campus.

“With no apparent sense of irony, lawyers for an organization called ‘Protect Democracy’ insist that a district court judge should order the Executive Branch immediately to restore the flow of taxpayer dollars to an elite university, which funding Defendants represent is inconsistent with the priorities of the duly elected President of the United States,” Vyskocil added. //

Vyskocil dismissed the case because the unions had no standing to sue, and Columbia University is “conspicuously absent” from the case as a plaintiff. //

She then went through the litany of bizarre counts against the Trump administration from the unions that did not describe any more than a tenuous relationship to the funding cuts at best. The unions even argued that the fact that they chose to spend money to oppose potential (yes, potential, not real) action from the Trump administration meant they had standing.

An organization “cannot spend its way into standing simply by expending money to gather information and advocate against the defendant’s action,” the judge wrote, quoting the Supreme Court.

Teachers unions, and universities for that matter, apparently believe they are entitled to federal funding and that any cut is a constitutional impossibility representing some kind of free speech violation. But as Vyskocil soberly pointed out in her second appeal to the fact that elections have consequences, the cuts are often made simply because the president — and the people who elected him — have priorities that differ from those of the unions and universities.

It has long been clear that the leftist activists who succeeded in getting “Juneteenth” added as a federal holiday meant to strip Independence Day of some of its moral and historical significance. The timing of Juneteenth, only a fortnight and change before the Fourth of July, is intended to usurp some of the Fourth’s glory. At the same time, the theme of the new holiday is designed to suggest that slavery, rather than liberty, is the defining feature of our founding. It’s an attempt to make 1776 vie with 1619, with the abolition of slavery being portrayed as our real moment of independence, in place of the moment when we actually proclaimed our independence and declared that “all men are created equal.” //

Per the Office of Personnel Management, the official name of the holiday to be observed on June 19 is “Juneteenth National Independence Day.” The official name of the holiday to follow 15 days later is “Independence Day.” It could hardly be clearer that Juneteenth was intended to compete with, and partially marginalize, the Fourth of July.

America does not need, should not have, and does not legitimately have, two Independence Days. Designating Juneteenth as “National Independence Day” intrudes upon our actual Independence Day. It suggests that Americans’ freedom doesn’t really trace to the Declaration of Independence but rather to the Emancipation Proclamation — or, more exactly, to awareness of that proclamation (more than two years after it was issued). It also suggests that our actual Independence Day doesn’t apply to all Americans. //

PBS writes, “Juneteenth commemorates when the last enslaved African Americans learned they were free.” This, however, is false. After Juneteenth, which marks the moment when federal troops arrived in Galveston, Texas in June 1865 and announced that all slaves in Texas were free, people were still held in slavery in Delaware and Kentucky, border states unaffected by the Emancipation Proclamation. //

Only Congress and the states, through the passage of a constitutional amendment, had the power to end slavery on a national basis.

This fact, and the fact that slavery remained in existence in Delaware and Kentucky after Juneteenth, likely would have been raised in the Senate had it bothered to engage in a genuine debate over whether Juneteenth should be a federal holiday. Instead, that body, which once prided itself on its vigorous deliberations, passed the Juneteenth bill under a unanimous consent agreement in the wake of the George Floyd riots, an act of true irresponsibility and political cowardice.

Since Juneteenth marked the end of slavery in Texas, rather than the end of slavery in the U.S., it a much more sensible holiday for Texas than for the U.S. as a whole.

On a national basis, a date truly worth commemorating would be December 6, the day on which the 13th Amendment was ratified, marking our constitutional triumph over an inherited evil that clashed with our founding principles. On that day in 1865, Americans successfully amended their Constitution to read, “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude … shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” That is a day, and those are words, worth celebrating.

Congress should make December 6 a federal holiday to celebrate America’s abolition of slavery, while eliminating Juneteenth as a federal holiday and thereby confirming that we have but one Independence Day.

Deploying the National Guard is not an overreach but a measured response to a crisis that local leaders have failed to address. //

Labeling riotous behavior as “peaceful protest” is a deliberate misrepresentation that erodes trust in governance. Protesters who attack federal agents, destroy property, and endanger lives are not champions of justice; they are obstructing the rule of law. To paint Trump as the villain for responding to this chaos is to invert reality and excuse lawlessness under the guise of political posturing. //

The rule of law is not negotiable, and no state can opt out of federal authority when it comes to immigration enforcement. Other communities across the country must take heed: excusing violence as protest and obstructing federal law enforcement sets a dangerous precedent. As a nation, we must stand united in supporting the lawful execution of federal duties and reject the narrative that casts law enforcement as the enemy. The safety of our communities and the integrity of our laws depend on it.

mopani Rocketgirl
4 minutes ago edited
An Article V convention is the fast way to neuter the Constitution. Conservatives have done so well managing to get good people into Congress, they would get just the right people into the Article V convention?

The Constitution came out of a similar convention to "fix" the Articles of Confederation, but we had extraordinary men then. We don't have them now, we would end up without a Constitution, without a Bill of Rights, no 2A protection, no 1A protection for either speech or religion, and we would have something about 900 pages long that only lawyers could understand, instead of a 6 page document that every school child can understand.

An Article V convention is the "easy" way, and we conservatives have been trying for the easy way for at least four generations.

The only way this gets fixed is by hard work and dedication for decades. The problem is not what's not in the Constitution, it's what is or is not in the hearts of the people. Change the hearts of the people and you will change the culture and then it will be easy to get the needed changes in the Constitution.

There is only way way to change the hearts of people, and that is at the cross.

Gavin Newsom
@GavinNewsom
·
Follow
Californians pay the bills for the federal government.

We pay over $80 BILLION more in taxes than we get back.

Maybe it’s time to cut that off, @realDonaldTrump.
4:35 PM · Jun 6, 2025

Where this goes is anyone's guess. The lawsuit by the Democrat Attorneys General seems a bizarre claim to entitlement. Likewise, the GAO opinion ignores the law it claims to enforce, as the Trump administration has not refused to spend the funds, but is reexamining how those funds are used. In a sane world, the Democrat lawsuit would fail for lack of standing, as no one is entitled to federal funds. Even though no one was found to have requisite standing to challenge the 2020 election results in court, we're seeing a new legal philosophy in play under President Trump where anyone has standing to challenge any act by the administration.

Ultimately, I think the Supreme Court will have to rule on the legality of the Impoundment Control Act. This was enacted by a hostile Democrat Congress against the efforts of a Watergate-damaged Richard Nixon to stop spending on stupid stuff to bring inflation under control (some of this should sound familiar). It was one of at least two pieces of legislation intended to make the president into a servile butler rather than the Chief Executive. The other piece is the, in my opinion, facially unconstitutional War Powers Act. There is a large amount of evidence that, previous to the Impoundment Control Act, presidents treated Congressional appropriations as a ceiling that could not be exceeded, rather than a mandatory number to be achieved. The former makes sense if the president controls the executive branch; the latter only makes sense if the president's only function is to do as he's ordered. As we're seeing with the struggle in Congress to cut spending, the only way to control the budget is for presidents to have the right to refuse to spend.

The administration is on course to bring all "independent" agencies under the control of the White House.

It will push the envelope until the impoundment issue reaches the Supreme Court, and I think it will win.

In a unanimous decision that restores sanity and reaffirms the true meaning of civil rights, the Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a misguided judicial doctrine that had, for decades, warped Title VII protections into a one-sided tool of “equity.”

Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services is not just a technical correction of legal doctrine, it is a resounding declaration that equality under the law still matters more than identity-based scorekeeping.

For years, some federal courts imposed what was known as the “background circumstances” test, a requirement that majority-group plaintiffs (read: white, male, heterosexual, or Christian employees) provide extra proof that their employer was the rare kind that discriminated against the majority. //

Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said plainly what constitutional conservatives have argued all along: “Title VII’s disparate-treatment provision draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs.” The law, she explained, “makes it unlawful to discriminate against any individual… because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” //

Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, filed a separate concurring opinion that went even further, calling out the root cause: judge-made doctrines that create unequal burdens under the guise of helping the marginalized. “Such a rule is undoubtedly contrary to Title VII, and likely violates the Constitution,” Thomas wrote. “[T]here can be no such thing as either a creditor or a debtor race.” //

Equality > Equity
This case is more than just a victory for a woman who was passed over and demoted in favor of candidates who checked more fashionable demographic boxes. It’s a victory over the growing trend of replacing equality with equity.

Equity, as practiced in far too many corporate HR departments and public institutions, demands unequal treatment to engineer equal outcomes. That’s not fairness, that’s retribution disguised as justice. In this case, it meant denying Marlean Ames the same legal protections everyone else enjoys, simply because of her orientation and perceived privilege.

The Ames decision, by contrast, restores the foundational principle that every American, regardless of background, deserves to be judged on the content of their character and qualifications, not on their demographic label.